Notes on BSB I-i-2-1D - Glossary

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

anumaanam = a logical inference

kaaraNatvaat = by reason of

kaarya = produced by action [kaaryam]

li~Ngaka = an indicator

manasaa = by the mind

nayyaayika = philosophers of the Nyaya [Logic] school

puurvapaksha = the objector [in a debate]

rachanaa = a construction

sarvaj~na = omniscient

sarvashaktimaan = omnipotent [sarvashaktimatvaat]

shaastra = scripture [shaastram], especially with injunctions/teaching

siddhiH = perfection; final accomplishment; yogic powers

swaruupaat = by reason of inherent form

tarka = logic [taarkika]

vastu = essence of Being

yonitvaat = by reason of its originating from [shaastra yonitvaat]

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote:

> Inadvertently an uncorrected version got posted in the morning.

Here

> is the corrected version. (These passive voices are useful, aren't

> they, to put the blame on non-free will factors!). Please

substitute

> the new version in place of the old. The contents, of course,

remain

> the same, since it is 'vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam' (the

> transformation is only apparent in the name and form) and we are

> advaitins!

>

>

> Notes on BSB I-i-2-1D

>

> sadaashiva samaarambhaa.n sha~Nkaraachaarya madhyamam.h |

> asmadaachaarya paryantaa.n vande guruparamparaam.h ||

>

> I prostrate to the lineage of teachers starting from Lord Shiva who

> is ever auspicious and with Bhagavaan Shankara in the middle and all

> the way up to my own teacher.

>

> vaatsalya ruupa.n triguNairatiitaM

> aananda saandram amalairnidhaanam.h .|

> shrii chinmayaananda guro praNiitaM

> sadaa bhaje.aha.n tava paada pa~Nkajam.h ||

>

> Who is the very embodiment of motherly affection who is beyond the

> three guNa-s, who is full with bliss, and who is the very source of

> purity who is the best among the teachers, Shree Chinmayaananda, to

> his lotus feet I (sadaa) always prostrate.

> --

-------

> samanvaya adhyaaya -

I

> spashhTa brahma li~Nga vaakya samanvaya

paada- i

> janmaadi adhikaraNam 2

> suutra 1 : janmaadyasya

yataH |

>

>

> We are discussing Shankara's description of the Iswara in terms of

> sarvaj~natvam.

>

> Shankara in his description uses another adjective- manasaa api

> achintya rachanaa ruupasya. A scientist can possibly determine how

> the brain functions, but he cannot recreate such a complex organ.

The

> Lord not only has omniscience - the know-how of how to create but

to

> implement that knowledge or execute that technology. That is, He

has

> enough power and skill to produce such a complex creation. One can

> see and destroy an ant or bug easily or swallow the whole chicken

in

> few minutes after frying it. But to produce such a complex living

> entity that can reproduce itself is unimaginable and we can not but

> admire that great designer and executor. Hence Shankara says He is

> sarva-j~na and sarva-shaktimaan due to sarva kaaraNatvaat - cause

for

> everything.

>

> This is the final meaning of the suutra 2. To summarize the whole

> thing - the meaning is yasmaat abhinna nimitta upaadaana

kaaraNaat ,

> aananda swaruupaat , sarva-j~naat , sarva shaktaat , pratyaksha

> prapa~nchasya sR^ishhTi sthiti layaaH sambhavanti , tat brahma.

> Because of which the non-differentiable intelligent and material

> cause, which is of the form of pure bliss, omniscient, omnipotent

> cause for creation, sustenance and dissolution of the visible

> universe - that is Brahman.

>

> With this Shankara concludes his commentary on the second suutra.

> After the conclusion he enters into another discussion by

introducing

> a puurvapaksha or objection from nayyayika -s (nyaaya

philosophers).

> Because of its importance we will discuss that aspect here.

>

> The first suutra says that we have to do Brahman inquiry. This can

> be done only after it is established that there is something called

> Brahman. To establish Brahman, it was said that - lakshaNa

> pramaaNaabhyaam vastu siddhiH - we need a lakshaNam or a definition

> and pramaaNa and means of knowing it. The second suutra provides

> that lakshaNa for Brahman and the third suutra will provide

pramaaNa

> required. In the third suutra it is said that the pramaaNam for

> Brahman is shaastram - shaastra yonitvaat . Now nayyaayika comes

up

> with a suggestion. He says why cannot one take the second suutra

> itself as a pramaaNam for Brahman also. According to him, the

second

> suutra defines Brahman or Iswara as jagat kaaraNam, cause for the

> world. Since jagat kaaraNam is Brahman, conversely jagat is

kaaryam

> of Brahman. That is if Brahman or Iswara is defined as the cause

or

> kaaraNam, then the world is the effect or kaaryam of Iswara

> (nayyayika-s use Iswara instead of Brahman). Hence naayayika-s say

> that the invisible Iswara can be inferred from the visible world

just

> as the invisible fire can be inferred from the visible smoke.

Hence

> nayyayika-s say the pramaaNam for Iswara can be simply anumaanam or

> inference or logic. This anumaanam is popularly known in tarka

> shaastra as - kaarya li~Ngaka anumaanam - the inference of

invisible

> kaaraNam or cause from visible kaaryam , or effect. From this

> nayyayika arrives at a conclusion that shaastra pramaaNam is not

> required to prove the existence of Iswara. Logic itself can do the

> job without the need of shaastra. Generally it is understood that

if

> direct perception, pratyaksha, can establish an object, then we do

> not need logic. Likewise, if pratyaksha cannot but logic can do

the

> job, then we do not need the next one, shabda pramaaNa to establish

> the object. Hence nayyaayika -s argue that there is no need for

> shaastra pramaaNa to establish Iswara.

>

> Advaitin as well as other vedantins would not agree for that.

Iswara

> cannot be established by pure logic without the help of shaastram.

> There is a radical difference between taarkika and the vedantin.

For

> taarkika the logic is the primary means of knowledge with regard to

> Iswara and shaastra is only of secondary importance while for

> Vedantin it is the other way around (see Notes I for reference).

We

> will analyze this in detail since the relative roles of shaastra

> pramaaNa versus anumaana pramaaNa will be established from the

point

> of two different philosophies, aastika -s vs. naastika -s.

>

> nayyayika-s argue that we do not need shaastra to prove the

existence

> of the Iswara. Just as when we see a person, even though we do not

> know any thing about his parents, we know that he must have

parents.

> The very presence of an effect presupposes the existence of the

> cause. Hence if there is a product there must be a producer whose

> existence I can infer. Since the world or jagat is seen, there

must

> be a creator, Iswara. Thus by inference or anumaana, I can know

the

> existence of Iswara without the need of shaastra -s. Hence for

> establishing Iswara or Brahman, anumaanam can serve as pramaaNam

and

> shaastram is not required - this is nayyaayika's argument.

>

> Shankara says it is not so. The second suutra does not provide

> anumaana pramaaNam for brahma siddhi or iishwara sidhhi. Shankara

> gives a simple reason for this, but the subcommentators provide

> additional reasons. The argument is as follows. Vyasacharya does

> not propound a new philosophy by using his reasoning power. This

is

> in contrast to many of darshanams (see Ch.I-for details) where the

> basis of their new philosophy is the or anumaana pramaaNa. These

> include saa~Nkhya, yoga, nyaaya, vaisheshhika, etc. all of which

> propound new philosophies primarily based on tarka or anumaanam;

and

> Shankara calls all of them together as taarkika -s. They accept

the

> shruti pramaaNam only as subservient to anumaaNa. Uniqueness of

> Brahmasutra is Vyasacharya does not establish the philosophy

through

> reasoning. He uses reasoning not to propound a new philosophy but

> only to derive a cogent systematic philosophy of the Vedas. Hence

> every suutra has got one or many Vedanta vaakyam -s or vishhaya

> vaakyam -s as its basis. If one claims that the second suutra

> establishes Iswara by anumaana pramaaNa then the very purpose of

> Brahasuutra is defeated. Hence Shankara uses a beautiful line

which

> is often quoted and which was provided in Ch. I - vedaanta vaakya

> kusuma grathanaarthatvaat suutraaNaam - every suutra is providing

an

> anumaaNam or reasoning alright but this reasoning is not an

> independent anumaanam. It is used only to bring out the Vedantic

> teaching in cogent form. It is like a thread to create a necklace

or

> garland of the flowers of vedaanta vaakyam -s. Here the garland is

> the vedaanta darshanam and the flowers are the veda vaakyam -s.

> The,tarka - thread is only hiding behind the flowers as subservient

> factor and has no independent utility other than tying the flowers

> together to form a beautiful garland of cogent vedantic philosophy.

> Hence the second suutra does not provide an independent anumaana

> pramaaNa but it is there to analyze the vedaanta vaakyam quoted

> before: "etova imaani bhuutaani jaayante ...." to provide lakshaNa

> suutra but not pramaaNa suutra. - This is the simpler answer

> Shankara gives. The subcommentators provide further arguments.

>

> It is clear from their puurvapaksha , nayyaayika -s believe that

> Iswara can be logically established. Vedantins vehemently disagree

> with nayyayika -s in this aspect. Vedantins strongly believe that

> Iswara or Brahman is revealed through shaastra alone. For

Vedantins,

> Iswara that is revealed through shaastra can be assimilated through

> logic. In the discussions that follow we will see that nayaayika -s

> use anumaana pramaaNam to establish Iswara and Vedantins take the

> position like that of DMK politicians in Madras to show that their

> logic is defective.

>

> Now nayyayika -s arguments: They deduce Iswara through three

> anumaanam -s or logical statements. (See Ch. II for discussion of

> anumaana pramaaNa.) 1. kshitya~Nkuradhikam (or jagat) sakartR^ikam,

> kaaryatvaat , ghaTavat . - That is, the world must have a creator,

> because it is an effect or product like a pot. The vyaapti vaakyam

> for this is - yat yat kaaryam tat tat sakartR^ikam , that is,

> whatever is product, it must have been created (by a creator).

From

> this anumaanam, they deduce first that there is a creator. 2. The

> second anumaana vaakyam is, jagat kartaa iishvaraH , jiiva

bhinnatve

> sati chetanatvaat , vyatirekeNa kulaalavat. In this anumaanam ,

> nayyayika establishes that the creator must be Iswara alone,

because

> no jiiva can create this world and since the creator has to be an

> intelligent or conscious being. Since there are only three

entities,

> jiiva , jagat and iishvara , conscious intelligent being other than

> jiiva is only Iswara, and hence the creator of this world has to be

> Iswara. This is called paarisheshha nyaaya , the logic by

elimination

> and residue. It is unlike a pot-maker, since like example cannot be

> given as it is one of a kind. The vyaapti vaakyam is yat jiiva

> bhinnatve sati chetanam tat iishvaraH - whatever is conscious being

> other than jiiva that must be IswaraH. 3. The third anumaana

vaakyam

> is - iishvaraH sarva-j~naH sarva-kartR^itvaat vyatirekeNa

kulaalavat

> - that is IswaraH is omniscient since he is a creator of everything

> unlike alpa-j~na kulaalaH or our good old pot maker who has

knowledge

> of only how to make a pot. The vyaapti vaakyam is yatra sarva

> kartR^itvam tatra sarva-j~natvam api bhavati. This is called

> lakshaNa li~Ngaka anumaanam. Thus nayyayika logically establishes

> sarva-j~na iishvaraH, omniscient Lord. Therefore he argues that

> existence of Iswara can be established logically and we do not need

> Vedas to do that. A modern day rational intellect is more happy

with

> a nayyayika than a Vedantin who relies on shaastra which requires a

> faith.

>

> Vedantin claims all these anumaana vaakyam -s or logical statements

> are defective. Let us examine the first anumaanam - jagat

> sakartR^ikam, kaaryatvaat, ghaTavat - the world is a creation

because

> it is a product, like a pot. For this nayyayika uses a vyaapti

> j~naanam - yat yat kaaryam sakartR^ikam, wherever there is product

> there must be a creator - example is like a pot. Every anumaana

> vaakyam must require a vyaapti and this vyaapti vaakyam (statement

> expressing concomitant relationship between hetu and saadhya - see

> Ch. II) is derived from pratyaksha pramaaNa only. anumaanam

requires

> vyaapti j~naanam and vyaapti j~naanam is established by pratyaksha

> pramaaNam alone. If vyaapti j~naanam is established by another

> anumaanam then that second anumaanam requires another vyaapti and

> this leads to infinite regress problem. It cannot be by shaastram

> either, since nayyaayika -s have already rejected shaastra

pramaaNam.

> Like the example we gave in Ch. II - yatra yatra dhuumaH tatra

tatra

> agniH - this vyaapti j~naanam is arrived only by pratyaksha

pramaaNam

> only - or by direct observation. vyaapti arrived by observation is

> valid only if it holds good in all the cases. Hence wherever there

> is a smoke there is a fire is a valid vyaapti but the converse

> wherever there is fire there is smoke is not a valid vyaapti, since

> it does not hold good all the time.

>

> Now Vedantin argues - if you say where there is product there is a

> creator - this is proved by pratyaksha only if the products are

> man-made. How about natural products - there the creator for these

> products are not perceptually proved. Therefore the defect in the

> first anumaana is vyaapti asiddhiH since there is no pratyaksha or

> direct observation of the creation of the universe by Iswara.

>

> Let us examine the second anumaana - jagat kartaa iishvaraH , jiiva

> bhinnatve sati chetanatvaat , vyatirekeNa kulaalavat - Iswara is

the

> creator of jagat, since He is a conscious entity different from

jiiva

> . For this vyaapti j~naanam involves establishing that wherever

there

> is a conscious being other than jiiva is involved, it must be

Iswara.

> That means the vyaapti statement involves a presupposition of the

> existence of Ishwara who is other than jiiva. But vyaapti j~naanam

> must be gathered by pratyaksha pramaaNam only or by direct

perception

> since nayyayika has already discarded shaashtra pramaaNam . But

> through perception we cannot talk about a conscious being other

than

> jiiva. Hence the second anumaanam is also defective since vyaapti

> vaakyam cannot be established by pratyaksha .

>

> Now the third anumaana: iishvaraH sarva-j~naH sarva-kartR^itvaat

> vyatirekeNa kulaalavat - Iswara is omniscient since He is the

creator

> of everything. Now to negate this anumaana we need to examine some

> 'axioms' that nayyayika -s have assumed in developing their

> philosophy. nayyayika-s say that every knowledge is born out of

> mind. - yat j~naanam tat manojanyam - This axiomatic statement is

> made since they depend heavily on the perceptions and inferences

for

> their philosophy. There may not be any problem with this statement

> but in a different place they make another statement which appears

to

> be unrelated to this - iishvaraH asshariiraH - that is Ishwara does

> not have body- that statement includes sthuula suuksham kaaraNa

> shariiraaNi - gross, subtle and causal bodies - which obviously

> includes the mind which is part of subtle body. The reason they

took

> mind away from Iswara is of their presumption that wherever there

is

> mind there is sa.nsaara - since Ishwara cannot have sa.nsaara, He

is

> made devoid of mind. Since according to nayyayikaa 's own

> statements - that the mind is required for j~naanam and Iswara does

> not have mind - hence it follows that Iswara being mind-less cannot

> have any knowledge leave alone the sarva-j~natvam. This defect is

> called - swa

> abhyupagama virodhaH - defect involving self-contradiction or

> contradicting ones own statements. Thus Vedantin proves that

> nayyayika -s third anumaanam is also defective. (For the record,

> these arguments are from the commentary called puurNaanandiiyam by

> Purnananda Saraswati which itself is a commentary on bhaashya

> ratnaprabhaa by Govindananda Saraswati which is in turn a comentary

> on Shankara Bhashya).

>

> Hence anumaanam which is based on pratyaksha cannot be a pramaaNa

for

> establishing Ishwara, who is beyond the human perception and hence

> beyond inference. Iswara established by anumaanam can be negated by

> anumaanam. Hence shaastra alone is the valid pramaaNa for that

which

> is beyond the perceptual knowledge. If vedantin uses logic it is

> blessed by shaastram - shruti sammata tarkeNa iishvara sidhhiH, na

tu

> kevala tarkeNa , or shushhka tarkeNa iishvara sidhhiH. That is

logic

> supported by the shaashtra is only valid for entities that cannot

be

> established by direct perception. The logic supported by direct

> perceptions are invalid to establish Iswara since He is beyond

direct

> perception.

>

> One more point Shankara makes in his bhaashyam. The discussion

does

> not mean that tarka is totally useless in the inquiry. Shankara

> emphasizes that tarka is important when properly used with the

> support of shaastra. - shrotavyaH , mantavyaH ,

nidhidhyaasitavyaH -

> the word mantavyaH indicates tarka is imporant for understanding

> Vedanta. In fact the whole Brahmasutra is called nyaaya

prasthaanam

> - logical analysis of upanishhad -s. Hence the use of tarka as

> subservient in understanding Vedanta. Shankara gives the reason why

> tarka is important in Vedanta. He contrasts the karma kaandam and

> j~nana kaandam - in karma kaanDa tarka has got a limited role.

> There procedures of rituals is more important - what should be done

> rather than why should it be done - There the knowledge of a ritual

> does not produce the results - performance of the ritual does. The

> benefit is the result of accomplishment of a ritual in time or

> time-bound. Hence Shankara's language - karma-kaandasya

> saadhya-vishhayatvaat karma pradhaanam , j~naanam apradhaanam -

since

> it deals with something to be produced in future doing is

important

> and knowing has only an indirect role. Suppose if moksha is

> something to be produced in future then like karma kaanDa,

procedure

> is important than knowledge - hence people say I have studied

Vedanta

> and now I have to practice or do more practice - some meditation or

> something else. Shankara says this is the common misconception.

> Vedanta does not deal with a future event - the result of a process

> or procedure. We are not learning any procedure, any technique or

> method of meditation through Vedanta or implement something after

> Vedantic study. It is dealing with the fact of moksha - which is

an

> accomplished fact! - which one has to understand. The whole

> Vedantic saadhana is only a process of understanding and there is

> nothing to implement after understanding. With the understanding

the

> end is accomplished. Whatever the obstruction in understanding

need

> to be eliminated. One of the obstruction is the intellect itself

in

> the form of sa.nshayaH or doubt - Hence tarka or mananam is very

> important - it is not an independent tarka but to remove the

> intellectual obstacles created in assimilating the Vedantic

teaching.

> Hence tarka serves in the understanding the Vedantic teaching and

in

> assimilating that teaching as one's own. There is nothing to do

> after understanding since the very understanding involves - I am

> akarthaa and abhoktaa. - I have nothing to do as I am ever

> liberated. - Hence Shankara says shruti is imporant, yukti is

> important and finally anubhava , which involves assimilating the

> knowledge as one's own, is important. anubhava is important only

> because our samsaara is present only in the form of anubhava - I am

> limited, I am small, the helplessness- the feeling of inadequacy,

the

> misery due to that feeling, the doubt about oneself, the doubt

about

> the teaching of Vedanta, etc. The moksha is freedom from these

> sensations - the puurNatvam , the samatvam - it is not anubhava or

> experience in the form of mystic experience that comes and goes,

but

> anubhava in the form of full freedom from all limitations. The

> understanding is complete when the sa.nsaara bhaavana or vipariita

> bhaavana goes away- Hence the benefit of this understanding is HERE

> and NOW - That I am eternally free and never was bound for any

> process of un-binding required. Hence inquiry is to be done using

> shaastra sammata tarka .

>

> With this Shankara's commentary on the second suutra is over. Next

> the conclusion part.

>

>

> Notes on Brahmasuutra-s are now stored in a folder and can be

accessed at

> advaitin/Notes+on+Brahmasuutra/

> for personal study.

>

> Copyright Protection - These notes are copyright protected.

> --

> --

> K. Sadananda

> Code 6323

> Naval Research Laboratory

> Washington D.C. 20375

> Voice (202)767-2117

> Fax:(202)767-2623